1

PLS 141 TTH 5:00-6:15

02/23/2010

The World at War

The basis from which these two theories (liberalism and realism) clash so violently is

their view of human nature. For the liberals, man is inherently good. For the realists, man is

inherently evil. So, it is understandable for the realist to say that the liberal is substantively of

the idealic sphere of thought since they cannot fathom the idea that man is inherently good and

not evil. Further, realists ally with Hobbes by agreeing that whether battles are being currently

waged – or not waged, man is already warring with every other man – and that every man is

equally matched in this war, this state of nature:

:In such condition [war] there is no place for industry

because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no
culture of the earth; no navigation nor use of the
commodities that may be imported by the sea; no
commodious building; no instruments of moving, and of
removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge
of the face of the earth, no account of time; no arts; no
letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear,
and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary,
poor, nasty, brutish, and short (Hobbes, 143).

It is through this understanding, this realist worldview of human nature, that the world

and life herein is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” Consequently, the realists view the

states and institutions as being necessary and of great import to all mankind. How else can

anarchy be circumvented? How else can liberties, freedom, possession, and life be attributed and

afforded to humankind? Again, the realists believe that since man will act in his own interest
 2

only, man must relinquish its natural right of self-governance to one man only. This individual

thence has the power to act in the interest of all mankind, forming the head of the

commonwealth. This man becomes as Hobbes terms him a “benevolent leviathan” (a mortal

god) who will be able to enforce the rights of all within the sphere of the commonwealth of

which he (leviathan) is the head. The problem arises however, when this “leviathan” governs

contrary to our “best interest.” As of today however, most if not all of the powerful states are no

longer governed by enlightened despots. Today, the approach within international politics is

highly pragmatic and ordered.

It is also important to note that the realist theory is nonnormative – it disregards the moral

compass that man possesses and views the world objectively and rationally, especially with

regard to policy decisions. For the realists, power, and the fluidity of power has the greatest

critical importance in terms of international relations, and as such, man gains for himself security

by ensuring that he possesses enough power in order to secure for himself that which he innately

senses to belong solely to his own being and the others. It is primordiale (of the supreme, most

vital importance) for the realists that man recognizes the brutish temporality of his own nature

grasping that the end result justifies whatever means used to secure the natural and inalienable

rights of man. Hobbs further points out that without common power there can be no justice:

To this war of every man against every man, this also is

consequent: that nothing can be unjust. The notions of
right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place.
Where there is no common power, there is no law; where
there is no law, no justice (Hobbes, 144).
 3

Although the realists recognize that man is evil by nature, they, like the liberals, desire

peace and not war:

…every man ought to endeavor peace, as far as he has

hope of attaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he
may seek and use all helps and advantages of war (Hobbes
146).

This demonstrates another point of disagreement between liberals and realists – the

means. Again, the realists are willing to use whatever “helps and advantages of war” available to

ensure that the world remains within a state of peace in the long term. The realists look at the

big picture and see the battles necessary and also temporary in the war against our own nature.

The liberals however, believe that battles are avoidable, and that they occur because we fail to be

rational and because we are corrupted by the state and various institutions. The liberals believe

that man is inherently good, and will therefore act in the interest of one another to achieve an

elusive state of peace, and specifically to achieve a “utopia” wherein war is a relic of antiquity.

Yet, in The Prince, Machiavelli points out that liberality (which is part of liberal theory but only

a segment) weakens the state:

There is nothing which destroys itself so much as liberality,

for by using it you lose the power of using it (Machiavelli,
119).

And that:

It is the nature of men to be as much bound by the benefits

that they confer as by those they receive (Machiavelli, 116).

Therefore, the realists desire that the ideality, and the morals of the liberals become

reality, yet they cannot believe that anything can be achieved as men are above all greedy and

self interested:
 4

[Men are] ungrateful, voluble, dissemblers, anxious to

avoid danger and covetous of gain; as long as you benefit
them, they are entirely yours (Machiavelli, 120).

Later, in his discourses, Machiavelli, while being an amoral realist, agrees with the liberal

theory by painting institutions and governments with blood – proving them to be self-destructing

and degenerative:

Thus monarchy becomes tyranny; aristocracy degenerates

into oligarchy; and the popular government lapses readily
into licentiousness. …for no precautions can prevent either
one of the three that are reputed good, from degenerating
into its opposite kind; so great are in these attractions and
resemblances between the good and the evil (Machiavelli,
133).

Finally, both theories hope to achieve relative peace: The realists with a balance of

power, and the liberals with intergovernmental organizations. I think that essentially, these

theories can be combined into one theory if they did not differ as to the generalities of human

nature. I however ally with the realists because I feel they have a more rational understanding of

human nature than the liberals.

 5

Bibliography
Somerville, J., & Santoni, R. (1963). Social and Political Philosophy: Readings from Plato to
Gandhi. New York: Random House, Inc.